Animal Harm and Domestic Animals

Chapter 4
Animal Harm and Domestic Animals

This chapter looks specifically at the causes of animal cruelty and animal welfare offences involving domestic animals, particularly animal harm such as neglect, cruelty, the deliberate inflicting of harm and causing unnecessary suffering to animals whether by act or omission. It discusses the link between animal abuse and masculinities arguing that much domestic animal abuse involving companion animals is caused by and a product of masculinities and power relationships within domestic relationships.

Chapter 3 identified different types of animal offender, confirming that while masculinities are a common cause of animal harm, there is a specific type of masculinities animal harm offender. For this offender, masculinities constitute both a primary cause of their offending behaviour and a justification for the animal harm that they cause. In domestic settings, animal harm is a means through which men sometimes express and reassert their masculinity in challenging social situations, or at least those situations where a perceived loss of power or challenge to their authority needs to be addressed.

This chapter discusses animal abuse, domestic violence and control within the home, examining how some animal abuse is a means to control other family members. Children or spouses can be manipulated into remaining with an abuser by means of the control exercised over companion animals (Browne 1993, Arkow 1996) while older family members can be intimidated into remaining silent about any abuse. In this respect, domestic animal harm is less a species justice issue relating to the specific issue of animal rights (Rollin 2006, White 2008) than it is one relating to how the animal harm imposed is a means to an end, determined in part by the vulnerability of animals as powerless family members rather than their lack of any protective rights regime. The chapter also examines how the abuse of domestic animals can be an indicator of other antisocial behaviour and a possible predictor of future offending. This discussion is a precursor to Chapter 9’s consideration of the links between animal abuse and violent crimes towards humans.

Domestic Animal Harm

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the legal protection afforded to animals while Chapter 2 specifies the varied nature of animal harm and the specific offences involved. As Chapter 1 notes, several countries have laws protecting domestic animals primarily through anti-cruelty laws that make it an offence to inflict pain or suffering on companion animals. In some jurisdictions this is phrased as causing ‘unnecessary suffering’ reflecting the fact that within domestic settings humans cannot always entirely avoid causing harm to animals. Indeed some forms of accidental harm or harm that constitutes a ‘necessary’ part of human–companion animal relationships (such as neutering, spaying or castrating) may constitute lawful suffering. In effect, some laws argue that by reducing animals into captivity and through the process of domesticating certain species over a period of time we have an obligation to ensure that they do not suffer harm while they are dependent on humans for food and shelter and unable to live independent lives, or at least that any suffering should be tightly controlled.

Nathanson (2009: 307) and other researchers have also examined the phenomenon of animal hoarding, ‘a deviant behaviour associated with extremely deleterious conditions of comorbid animal and self-neglect’, where individuals attempt to take care of more animals than is practical and neglect is the result. However hoarding also represents a dysfunctional human–animal relationship where individuals may actively ‘collect’ animals as companions. Patronek and Nathanson (2009: 274) explained that animal hoarding is maladaptive, destructive behaviour where ‘compulsive caregiving of animals can become the primary means of maintaining or building a sense of “self”’. This may be especially true for those individuals who have suffered dysfunctional primary attachment experiences in childhood and for whom a relationship with animals can take on increased importance in their life. The RSPCA, SSPCA and environmental health agencies in the UK (and their respective organizations in other countries) frequently deal with cases where individuals have sought to care for increasing numbers of cats and dogs, seemingly unable to turn any animal away but resulting in their being unable to care properly for these animals thus causing unlawful neglect. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) estimates 900 to 2,000 new cases of animal hoarding every year in the United States while statistics released by the RSPCA in the UK annually show a persistent problem of animal hoarding cases. One difficulty in precisely defining this type of animal harm is the varied definitions in use. The RSPCA defines a hoarder as somebody who has accumulated a large number of animals that ‘have overwhelmed that person’s ability to provide even minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation and veterinary care’ (2010: 10). However a narrower definition of hoarding that primarily incorporates the accumulation of animals even though ‘minimal’ standards of care might be present could be adopted by environmental health officers, for example in noise nuisance cases where noise is caused by excessive animal occupation or overcrowding of a property. The RSPCA definition also notes that hoarders fail to recognize the deteriorating condition of the animals in their care, examples of extreme cases include a collar growing into an animal’s skin, an untreated infection of parasites, starvation, dehydration or even death as a result of inadequate care. Hoarders also often fail to recognize the negative effects of a large collection of animals on their own health and that of other members of the family. Thus their form of animal harm also inadvertently results in human harm.

While hoarding is an extreme form of passive animal harm and may initially be the result of good intentions gone awry, it indicates the serious consequences of neglect as an illegal activity unwittingly carried out by some individuals. Hoarders are, in effect, stress offenders (see Chapter 3), compulsively associating with companion animals in order to either fulfil their own need for care or as a result of some unresolved harm or stress within their lives. However inadequate food or shelter or failing to consider care or grooming needs such that an animal suffers constitutes passive animal harm.

Active animal harm consists of deliberate and intentional harm caused to animals (Daugherty 2005). Active cruelty thus indicates some malicious intent on the part of the offender which may be an indicator of psychological factors such as a predisposition towards cruelty (Ascione 1993, Boat 1995) and may also indicate that an abuser commits other forms of abuse within the home such as spousal or child abuse (Schleuter 1999, Turner 2000). The link between animal cruelty and violent antisocial behaviour is now largely accepted by the scientific and law enforcement communities and is becoming accepted within criminology (Agnew 1998, Arluke 2006, Levin and Arluke 2009). As an aspect of animal harm, however, the strength of the link should be considered with caution and acknowledgement that domestic animal abuse does not automatically escalate into violent behaviour towards humans. MacDonald (1963) identified three specific behavioural characteristics associated with sociopathic behaviour: animal cruelty, obsession with fire starting and bedwetting (past age five). The MacDonald triad was instrumental in linking these behaviours to violent behaviours, particularly homicide and identifying cruelty to animals as a possible indicator of future violent behaviour. Subsequent studies (Petersen and Farrington 2009) have confirmed that cruelty to animals is a common behaviour in children and adolescents who grow up to become violent criminals. However, in the case of adults who abuse animals it can indicate a violent or abusive family dynamic, one in which patriarchal power is enforced through inflicting harm on weaker or more vulnerable members of a family who may be unable to defend themselves. In some circumstances acts of animal abuse are used to intimidate, control or coerce women and children within an abusive relationship either to accede to a perpetrator’s demands or desires or to keep silent about the abuse they are suffering. However, animal abuse may also be an outlet for aggression for male offenders or child victims within a domestic setting such that animals bear the brunt of, or are at risk of, suffering from violence from a number of sources within a family. Companion animals are often part of the family and may be attuned to the levels of tension within a family. Evidence shows that some animals experience, or at least respond to, the distress of their owners (Schleuter 1999, Wiegand et al. 1999). Thus, in addition to physical abuse and neglect, animals may also suffer from psychological abuse and be subject to the same emotional stress of living in fear from domestic abuse or other forms of violence within the home as other family members such as a spouse or children.

A number of studies have identified a causal link between animal abuse and domestic abuse concluding that in homes where domestic abuse takes place, animal abuse is often present (Ascione 1993, Ascione and Weber 1995, Lewchanin and Zimmerman 2000). The relationship is a complex one; while not as straightforward as saying that an individual who abuses a spouse is also likely to be abusing animals in the home it can however be said that where an individual in a position of power within the family (i.e. the dominant male) is abusing animals, other forms of abuse such as spousal or child abuse are also likely to be occurring. Active or passive animal harm in the form of animal cruelty can be part of a cycle of abuse within the family, or even a consequence of domestic abuse. Definitions of domestic abuse are themselves not straightforward. The term ‘domestic violence’ is frequently used as shorthand to describe the most prevalent form of domestic abuse dealt with by criminal justice agencies, usually that of violence towards women by a male spouse or partner (Morley and Mullender 1994). However several criminologists and psychologists have examined domestic abuse in detail, concluding that domestic abuse is not confined to physical abuse that occurs solely within a domestic setting but can include a range of abusive behaviours that occur either within the home or within the wider domestic environment and family (including extended family) relationships (Ascione 2000, Petersen and Farrington 2009). Domestic abuse can thus incorporate physical, psychological or sexual abuse, and while policy and law enforcement attention is often concentrated on physical or sexual abuse directed either at female partners or children, psychological abuse is equally important (O’Leary 1999) and particularly relevant where animal abuse is concerned. Threats made against a companion animal can cause extreme emotional distress in both children and adult partners and can be an effective tool for an offender to both control other family members and those dependent on them or to influence control over a family dynamic. This control is particularly damaging for those vulnerable family members who have intense emotional attachments to companion animals. Morley and Mullender identified that ‘domestic violence is almost always a multiple victimisation crime’ (1994: 5) as attacks (whether verbal or physical) by the same perpetrator are almost always repeated, although the frequency with which this occurs is dependent on the motivation of the offender (Farrell et al. 2005). Animal harm aimed at companion animals can thus be part of an overall pattern not just of persistent animal harm but of other antisocial behaviour and violence within the home. As a result, animal harm directed at companion animals is significant in terms of influencing subsequent animal harm caused by children and adolescents, and the escalation of animal harm either as control or punishment carried out during a deteriorating (or escalating) cycle of partner abuse.

Animal harm can have varied effects on children who can themselves be victims of abuse within the family but can also witness abuse perpetrated against other members of the family including companion animals. Moffit and Caspi (2003) identified that young children and partner violence are concentrated in the same segment of the population, the result of this is that many children witness partner violence within the home. Exposure to animal abuse may also be a common childhood experience, especially (but not only) in homes where partner abuse is present. Baldry’s survey of 1,356 9–17-year-olds in Rome found exposure to animal abuse by peers reported by 63.7 percent of respondents and an exposure rate of 60.9 percent to non-parental animal abuse (2003). Pagani et al. (2007) found that 65 percent of respondents in their study of 800 Roman children had witnessed some form of animal abuse, and Thompson and Gullone (2006) in their study of a sample of 281 adolescents (aged between 12 and 18) in Australia found that 77.5 percent of the sample had witnessed animal abuse at least once. While the research studies consisted of different samples, methodologies and assessment criteria, these and other research studies have consistently found significant levels of exposure to domestic animal abuse among children and adolescents. That such exposure may impact on a young person’s attitudes towards violence is increasingly accepted by mental health and law enforcement practitioners.